Reserved Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33244 of 2009 Raja Singh alias Raj Kumar Singh Versus State of U.P. Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
Aggrieved by the order of refusal of bail dated 12.8.2009 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, the applicant has preferred
this bail application before this Court for consideration of prayer for bail in
Case Crime No. 38 of 2005, S.T. No.244 of 2008 under Sections 326, 307
I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station
Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh.
The background facts in nutshell are as follows;
The F.I.R. of the case was registered on 1.2.2005 at about 7.40 P.M. at Police
Station Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh in respect of the incident which is
alleged to have taken place on the same day at about 7.00 P.M. As per the
prosecution case,on the aforesaid date and time the informant along with his
brother was sitting in his purchune shop situate near the roadside village
Giyapur which is in front of Village Bahlolpur turning. All of a sudden, the
applicant as well as two others, namely,Sonu and Mangaru came near that
shop and on exhortation of co-accused Sonu both the applicant and co-
accused Mangaru hurled bombs upon the informant who anyhow managed to
escape but Asharaf alias Sonu, one of the customers standing at the shop, had
sustained serious injuries on his leg. The victim was medically examined at
Azamgarh District Hospital on the same day and thereafter he was referred to
B.H.U. Hospital, Varanasi for better treatment and management where he
remained admitted till 24.2.2005. The applicant as well as aforesaid co-
accused were named in the F.I.R. On account of which two other co-accused-
persons surrendered before the court while applicant fled away from the
judicial process and ultimately charge sheet was submitted against all the
accused persons on completion of the investigation under Sections 326, 307
I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act on 20.12.2005. Since the
applicant remained absconding the trial of the other two accused persons was
separated which concluded in their conviction vide judgement and order dated
17.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1),
Azamgarh. However, the courts below took various recourses permissible
under the law for procuring and ensuring the presence of the applicant and
ultimately he surrendered before the court on 20.3.2008 and now he is facing
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State
and perused the material placed on record.
Submissions made by learned counsel for applicant is that the applicant is
wholly innocent, has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and he has
been working in private transport company at Ahmedabad, Gujrat since
1.1.2000 and had worked till 31.1.2008 and on account of his employment he
was not aware of institution of aforesaid case and proceeding thereof against
him and as soon as he came to know about it, he surrendered before the court
concerned. She further submits that the applicant is a very poor person and
has got no motive at all for participation in the alleged offence. In fact, he has
been implicated in the alleged crime on account of enmity with the present
village pradhan who has influenced local police due to political power. She
has further argued that the applicant is in jail for more than two years and the
trial has not commenced in the absence of the record which has been
summoned by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4670 of 2008. She has
further submitted that co-accused Mangaru Singh as well as Sonu Singh have
been released on bail by this Court in aforesaid criminal appeal and, therefore,
the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
However, the bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. by contending that the
applicant remained absconding for more than three years from judicial
process, thus looking to his conduct, the prosecution is apprehensive of the
fact that in case he is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood
of his fleeing away from judicial process again and moreover, the trial has
already commenced and substantially proceeded and it will not be proper for
this Court to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material
placed on the record and considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it will not be proper for this
Court to release the applicant on bail. It is admitted position that sessions trial
has commenced and substantially proceeded, thus it will not be proper at this
stage to comment upon the nature of the evidence on the one way or the other.
The dexterous litigant cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of his illegal design
of impeding the course of justice by resorting to unscrupulous methodology.
The prayer for bail of the applicant is, therefore, declined and the bail
application is accordingly dismissed.
However, taking into account aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and that the case is old one of year 2001, the trial court is directed to make
every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in
consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Both the parties are
expected to cooperate in the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
The office is directed to send the copy of this order to the District and
Sessions Judge/trial court for intimation and necessary compliance along with
the trial court record which has been linked with the Criminal Appeal
No.4670 of 2008 (Mangaru Singh and others Versus State of U.P.) and after
conclusion of the trial in respect of the present applicant-Raja Singh alias Raj
Kumar Singh aforesaid record be again transmitted to this Court which shall
be kept on the record of Criminal Appeal No.4670 of 2008.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010